A baseball card is a medium of exchange, magic cards were designed to be exchanged are they currency?

Baseball cards are designed to be exchanged as a collectable, not as an actual medium-of-exchange.

Quote

No, medium of exchange is one function of currency another is unit of account bitcoin is not a unit of account because it is not a unit.

A bitcoin is as much of a unit of value as the US Dollar is, as I have noted repeatedly in this very thread. A unit does not require an external reference, as you seem to claim. All that is required that a unit exist, is that more than a few people agree upon a (preferablely not vague, but even that is not a requirement; take a look at the variance in the concept of a "cord" of firewood) standard. The bitcoin exchange markets set the 'standard' of price for a bitcoin on an ongoing basis. But in the long term, a bitcoin is a bitcoin in as much as a dollar is a dollar.

Quote

If it is a currency it is going for the the most useless currency of all time... in other words if bitcoin is a currency it is a shit one.

Okay. Your opinion is well known on this matter, but it doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is a currency.

Quote

You are a Ron Paul supporter right? Why advocate for something that wont work? It isnt valuable as a commodity and doesnt work as a currency.

Just because it may not work for you as a currency, doesn't mean it doesn't work for me. I've used it as such on numerous occasions in the past. I expect to continue to do so; but even if I'm wrong about such an expectation does not imply that Bitcoin is not presently a currency, because it provably is. A Continental was a currency once as well, but that doesnt' mean that they must be 'worth a Continental' today to have been a currency in 1778. Maybe Bitcoin will fade away like so many others here believe, and maybe it won't; but if I can buy stuff online using Bitcoin, and only Bitcoin, in trade; then Bitcoin is a currency now, regardless of how or why that is so.

Bitcoin does not generate revenue. Bitcoin goes up and down in market value, that is quite different.

Quote

A stock is an asset and is speculative for the most part people invest in stocks for capital gain,

While a stock is often a speculative investment vehicle, stocks are (at the core) contractual evidence that you own a definable piece of a business venture; which (presumedly) exists to turn a profit. It's the profit that makes the stock an asset, not it's speculative nature.

Quote

but that is fine if you want to call it a commodity instead of an asset

Nor is it a commodity, because it has no non-monetary utility. No one desires to aquire bitcoins for their own sake, but to spend or sell them at a later date. You can't really do anything else with them, at least not yet. (Colored coins might change that analysis later)

Quote

so long as you dont call it currency which it clearly is not.

Bitcoin is a currency, as I noted in the "bitcoin is not a currency" thread on several occasions.

Of course not. Bitcoin is, by definition and design, a currency. Your arguments are rediculous.

No one can define bitcoin that is the problem.

I can and have. Your problem is that you won't accept my definition of "currency".

Really what was the definition again?

A "currency" is a designed medium of exchange, that may or may not be "backed" by a commodity, or may or may not be "backed" as legal tender by some government. While a money, such as gold, can be minted into coins (and thus also be a currency) a true money is a common commodity that functions as a medium of exchange in a free market, but may not have a 'standard' unit. By coining that gold into a standard unit, such as a one troy ounce shape with some king's face on it, and declaring it the official money of the realm, a currency is created. However, the past 100 or so years are proof enough that once a currency is well established and trusted to continue; the original money behind the currency is often no longer necessary. All fiat currencies are designed by men, whether or not they ever contained (or were otherwise backed by) gold or silver. Bitcoin is a currency because it was designed (presumedly by one or more human beings) to function as a medium of exchange on the Internet. Whether or not Bitcoin is a good currency or not is up for debate, and whether or not any particular government agency desires to recognize that Bitcoin is a currency or not is irrelevent; but Bitcoin is a currency regardless.

It is not, however, a true money; because regardless of how useful it is as a medium of exchange, or even as a store of value, Bitcoin never had a pre-existing and non-monetary utility that would have driven it's adoption in a free market as a highly marketable good.

Nor is Bitcoin a fiat currency, because no government institution requires it's use in any context. Bitcoin is difficult for some to explain, or even wrap their heads around, because it's something new in the realm of exchange mediums. It's closest to a LETS (Local area Exchange system) wherein the local area is the entire Internet, and that uses triple entry accounting to track exchanges; but it's not a debt based system and the total number of currency units are fixed and known at any given point in time.

Cool, so we get to keep the increasing value of the currency as opposed to having the central banks siphon the value out of the dollars in my bank account? You feel more comfortable with the idea of your money losing value so you have to spend it right away?

The only reasons I'm not using my bitcoins thus far

A) I'm not being paid in bitcoins

B) Few are accepting them directly.

I'm not converting to fiat and back just to dip into my holdings. As soon as I can just do away with handling fiat and pay my rent in btc I shall do so.

When it takes off with gusto in 2014-2015, then I'll be using them as currency instead of just holding them

And they are not going to start accepting them.. they cant. It is not currency it is an asset but what kind of asset is it?

An asset is something that generates value to the owner by some other method than speculation. Bitcoin does not do that, it represents value that can be transfered, but cannot produce new value. Bitcoin cannot ever be an "asset".

What about as a means of transferring money for less than a bank would charge?

That's savings, not new value, more commonly known as "income". Of course, unless you're renting it out, real estate doesn't qualify as an 'asset' either; so this is another one of those economic terms that have a bit different common usage. If you have a mortagage, your home is a 'liability' not an asset.

Cool, so we get to keep the increasing value of the currency as opposed to having the central banks siphon the value out of the dollars in my bank account? You feel more comfortable with the idea of your money losing value so you have to spend it right away?

The only reasons I'm not using my bitcoins thus far

A) I'm not being paid in bitcoins

B) Few are accepting them directly.

I'm not converting to fiat and back just to dip into my holdings. As soon as I can just do away with handling fiat and pay my rent in btc I shall do so.

When it takes off with gusto in 2014-2015, then I'll be using them as currency instead of just holding them

And they are not going to start accepting them.. they cant. It is not currency it is an asset but what kind of asset is it?

An asset is something that generates value to the owner by some other method than speculation. Bitcoin does not do that, it represents value that can be transfered, but cannot produce new value. Bitcoin cannot ever be an "asset".

I wouldn't expect a western-grown naive fool to recognize a real minority when he hears one. Obviously since I am willing to speak the the necessary truth, I must be branded as either a 'fake' or a 'race traitor'. Such childish and typical bitching attitude from privileged minorities in the west.

If there's anything foreigners in other nations hate more than a proud American, is an uppity and mouthy US minority punks who thinks world owes them a favor.

They display the worst negative stereotypes of an American better and louder than any White American I have ever met: No guts, no spine, no fucking idea what they bitch about yet feels entitled to demand shit from others and desperately try to look down on other people because their parents ran away from their own country. Not to mention their own parents seem to think any and all failing of the spoiled fucks they call their kids is due to the 'corrupting' influence of US, while any success must be attributed to their 'superior' parenting based on their 'unique and superior culture'.

As for the supposed 'racial slur', I suggest you grow some fucking spine. This president of ours clearly believes the color of his skin should dictate his way of life. Ironically, he is possibly more racially biased than any white man I've met in terms of letting his racial posturing poison his view of the world. That's one of the reasons why rest of the world took him to school and more or less bitch slapped him around during the Syrian issue. It ultimately had to do with the fact that Obama bought into his own hype and acted as if he could make do on international stage as he had done domestically: Bringing himself out as if he is some kind of moral icon that demands guilt and moral hostage situation from all who know him.

As I said, the uppity boy got FUCKED GOOD.

I have no problem calling somebody something which they believe themselves to be. I have every respect for people like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, or for those with the courage to see beyond their compatriot's idiotic and fucking childish bitch fest they call 'civil rights' these days. But infantile and childish fucks who are too busy bitching and moaning try to tell others that people such as Powell and Rice are 'house negroes' and 'uncle toms'. As if any one of them still bitching have ever even pissed into a colored toilet.

I have no respect for those who behave in such manners as to outshine any racist KKK member in terms of behaving spoiled and mouthy.

I don't give a two shit about the bitchfest dark skinned people in US engage in so that they may buttress their 'pride' while shitting away half a grand on watches and shoes. I personally don't think my darker skin gives me greater moral authority over people of US.

So, boy it is. What else would you expect from this punk besides obamacare?

Wow. That was quite a hostile rant. As far as I am concenred, you're welcome to your opinion, but I think that your placing blame for things outside of Obama's own doing. And while my own hue isn't particularly dark, I am (like many others in the city where I live) part American Indian; so I agree with the sentiment that some people take the whole "white privilages & guilt" BS too far. Still, I wouldn't stoop to using racial remarks against the POTUS.

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there.

Perhaps US law is different, but I would have thought that selling them at all, even if clearly labelled as fakes, would still be a trademark violation.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear to be covered by 15 USC § 1125

Yes, but there is more to it than that. First off, it has to be fairly obvious that the manufacturer and the seller intended to commit fraud. A copycat that is obviously a copycat can easily be argued to be a parody product in court, and if the trademark holder never prosues the issue in a US court at all, then the law presumes that the product is not in violation of trademarks. Granted, this assumes that the trademark owner is aware of said copycat product, but that's their problem. Until an injuction against the product has occurred, selling them is not illegal; and buying them never is.

EDIT: There are a number of Chinese knockoff products that have the trademarked name diliberately misspelled, that are often sold in cheap retail places commonly called "dollar stores". The copycats aren't very good, perhaps deliberately, and anyone who thought the product was the original had to be less than observant.

Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there.

Obama's nothing but a bitch made punk who is outclassed, outwitted, and outsmarted both internationally and domestically. This boy and his ilk tries to pander to minorities like me in US using color of his skin as some sort of a pass.

I find your choice of wording, strange.

Maybe I don't care so much about ethnic allegiances as much as I care about the country I am loyal to. If that is such a strange idea, you better rethink what it means to belong to and being a part of a group.

I was referring to a self-described minority calling the POTUS "this boy". I find it odd that any American, and particularly one who believes himself to be a minority, to use a common (if minor) racial slight against a duely elected US president. Or do you not agree that his relection was fair and proper? I presume that your minority status wouldn't be of an African racial decent.